[Cite as State v. Cottingham, 2020-Ohio-4220.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 109100 

 v. : 

 

RANDY COTTINGHAM, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 27, 2020 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-18-625113-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Eleina Thomas, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Thomas A. Rein, for appellant. 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

Defendant-appellant, Randy Cottingham, appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment finding him guilty of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, 

kidnapping, theft, improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, and felonious 

assault. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. 
I. Background 

Cottingham was indicted in a 37-count indictment as follows: 

Counts 1-4, aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and 

(2) with one- and three-year firearm specifications; 

Counts 5-6, aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) with 

one- and three-year firearm specifications; 

Counts 7-8, kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) with oneand three-year firearm specifications; 

Count 9, theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) with one- and threeyear firearm specifications; 

Count 10, improperly discharging into habitation in violation of R.C. 

2923.161(A)(1) with one- and three-year firearm specifications; 

Counts 11-15, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) with 

one- and three-year firearm specifications; 

Count 16, improperly discharging into habitation in violation of R.C. 

2923.161(A)(1) with one- and three-year firearm specifications; 

Count 17, identity fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.49(E); 

Count 18, grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3); 

Count 19, Medicaid fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.40(B); 

Count 20, forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(2); 

Count 21, carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 

2923.12(A)(2), with forfeiture specifications; 

Count 22, receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) with 

forfeiture specifications; 

Count 23, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation 

of R.C. 2923.16(B) with forfeiture specifications; 

Count 24, tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); 
Count 25, trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) with a one-year 

firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 26, drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) with a oneyear firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 27, trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) with a one-year 

firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 28, drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) with a oneyear firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 29, trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) with a one-year 

firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 30, drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) with a oneyear firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 31, trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A) with a one-year 

firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 32, drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) with a oneyear firearm specification and forfeiture specifications; 

Count 33, possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) with 

forfeiture specifications; 

Counts 34-37, having weapons while under disability in violation of 

R.C. 2923.13(A)(1), (2), and (3) with forfeiture specifications. 

After Cottingham pleaded not guilty, Counts 1-16 were tried to a jury, 

which found him guilty of all counts and specifications. Cottingham then pleaded 

no contest to Counts 17-37, and the trial court found him guilty of all counts and 

specifications. At sentencing, the court sentenced Cottingham to 23 years in prison 

on this case, consecutive to 3 years incarceration in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-18-

612824 and CR-18-614777 (in which Cottingham had pleaded guilty before trial in 

this case), for an aggregate term of 26 years in prison. This appeal followed. The 

appeal is limited to the jury trial on Counts 1-16 in this case. 
II. Trial Testimony 

On August 16, 2017, Myles McCall ran into a Cuyahoga Metropolitan 

Housing Authority (“CMHA”) police station shouting “this guy is trying to shoot 

me.” CMHA police officer Manuel Leon assisted McCall, who was breathing heavily, 

sweating, and acting in an excited manner. McCall told Officer Leon that the person 

trying to kill him was “some guy named Randy,” and that the incident occurred while 

McCall was visiting his then-girlfriend Shawnta Perry. As other CMHA officers 

performed a perimeter sweep of the Bundy Drive and King Kennedy areas of 

Cleveland where McCall said the incident occurred, Officer Leon continued to 

question McCall to learn what had happened. 

McCall testified that on August 16, 2017, he and his friend Demario 

were visiting Perry, who lived on Bundy Drive in the King Kennedy CMHA 

apartment complex. McCall said that he and Perry were in the bedroom having sex 

when Demario knocked on the door and told them that someone was at the door. 

McCall testified that the knocking got louder, and then Cottingham, who was 

holding a gun, kicked in the bedroom door. McCall said that Cottingham then 

assaulted Perry, hitting her numerous times in the head with his gun and kicking 

her in her stomach “like he was trying to knock her out so he could get to me.” 

McCall said that he did not know Cottingham before the incident, but learned his 

name during the assault because Perry kept yelling “Randy stop. Don’t do this.” 

McCall testified that during the incident, Cottingham told him to “shut up,” and that 

“people been telling me to line you up.” 
McCall testified that Cottingham then told him that the “only thing 

[that] would make him happy is money,” so McCall gave Cottingham his credit card. 

Cottingham told McCall “you going to come to the ATM with me,” and forced him at 

gunpoint to leave the house. McCall testified that Cottingham had the gun to his 

head the whole time and told him that he would shoot him if he tried to run. A police 

car drove by as they were walking outside and Cottingham, who briefly put the gun 

down, told McCall, “Don’t think about running[;] I will shoot you. I don’t care about 

police.” McCall said that another male he knew as Buck accompanied them and 

tried to convince Cottingham to stop what he was doing. 

McCall said that as they entered an alleyway, Cottingham was in front 

of him and Buck was behind. Sensing an opportunity, McCall ran away and headed 

toward the CMHA police station. Sergeant Robert Vales testified that he was in the 

back parking lot of the CMHA police station on August 16, 2017, when a male ran 

past him shouting that a man was shooting at him. McCall testified that he believed 

that if he had gone further into the alleyway with Cottingham and not run for his 

life, Cottingham would have shot him that day. 

McCall subsequently identified Cottingham in a photo lineup as the 

perpetrator. He said that two weeks after the incident, several of Cottingham’s 

friends told him that Cottingham was drunk during the incident and wanted to 

apologize. McCall also testified that in early 2018, while Cottingham was in jail 

awaiting trial, he received a telephone call from a private number, and the caller told 

him that someone would pay him not to testify. 
Perry testified that she and Cottingham dated for approximately a year 

but their relationship ended in April 2017. She said that she started dating McCall 

in May 2017, and that he was visiting her home on August 16, 2017. She 

corroborated McCall’s testimony that while they were having sex in the bedroom, 

Cottingham kicked in the bedroom door, and she “and Randy [began] tussling while 

he had a gun in his hand trying to get to Myles.” She said that the gun hit her in the 

face as she and Cottingham were “tussling back and forth, fighting,” and Cottingham 

then kicked her in the stomach. 

Perry also corroborated McCall’s testimony that Cottingham 

demanded money from McCall, and that McCall gave Cottingham his credit card. 

Perry testified that as Cottingham held McCall at gunpoint, he told him, “You know 

what time it is.” Perry testified further that at the time of the incident, Cottingham 

did not have permission to be in her home or bedroom, and that his entrance was 

completely unexpected. She said she was aware that Cottingham carried guns and 

drove a silver SUV, and she identified pictures of the injuries to her face and the 

SUV. Perry testified, like McCall, that Cottingham called her two weeks after the 

incident to apologize. 

Perry also testified that one of Cottingham’s friends questioned her 

when Cottingham was in jail about whether she was going to testify. Perry said that 

made her “nervous, anxious, and scared” because she thought “something was going 

to happen if she testified” against Cottingham, and she was worried about her 

reputation if people in her neighborhood thought she “was telling on him.” During 
the investigation regarding this case, the police learned that Cottingham made a 

jailhouse call to his friend Jashon Randall on October 25, 2017, and asked Randall 

to contact Perry and convince her to write a statement that she had lied about the 

August 16 incident. Two days later, in another jailhouse call, Cottingham told 

Randall that his brother, Temarcus Church, had talked to Perry. 

Perry said that on September 23, 2017, she received a telephone call 

from her uncle, De’Shawnta Boyland, who told her that he was coming to pick her 

up and take her to her mother’s house because he had just been in a fight with 

Cottingham at a bar, and was worried that Cottingham would retaliate by harming 

her house. Boyland testified that he and Cottingham were arguing in the bar when 

Cottingham swung at him and missed. Boyland said that he “got the upper hand” 

with Cottingham, who then told him “he wasn’t taking no losses,” and that he would 

“shoot this bitch up.” Boyland said he left the bar, picked up Perry, and took her to 

her mother’s house on Avon Avenue in Cleveland. Perry’s mother, Kenyada Perry, 

and several other people — including Michelle Frost (Kenyada’s best friend), George 

Smith (Kenyada’s boyfriend), Willie Jackson (Kenyada’s brother), and Perry’s 

children — were already at the house. 

Perry testified that she and others were on the porch of her mother’s 

house around 4:00 a.m. when they saw a silver car, followed by a red car, drive 

slowly past the house. She said that Jackson told the group to get inside, and after 

they were inside, “a lot” of shots were fired into the house, and everyone fell to the 

floor. 
Michelle Frost testified that she was living with Kenyada at the time of 

the incident, and that Perry and her children were frequently at the house. Frost 

said that she knew Cottingham and was aware that he and Perry dated at some point 

in 2017. She said she knew that Cottingham was driving a gray Ford Escape with a 

30-day tag around the time of the shootings, and she identified Cottingham’s vehicle 

in multiple photographs. 

Frost testified that a little after 3:00 a.m on September 23, 2017, she 

and other individuals were on the front porch of the house when a gray Pontiac G-6 

without any lights on pulled up. Moments later, a burgundy Ford Escort, also with 

no lights on, pulled up behind the G-6, and then both vehicles drove away. Frost 

said that after everyone went inside the house, she observed the same two vehicles 

drive slowly by the house again several times. Five to ten minutes later, she observed 

Cottingham’s gray SUV pull up to the house, and saw someone wearing a gray 

hoodie and carrying a gun “with a long clip” exit the vehicle and begin shooting at 

the house. Frost said there was “smoke everywhere” and bullets were “ricocheting 

all over” as people scattered through the house looking for somewhere to hide; some 

hid in closets, others lay on the floor in the bedroom. When the shooting stopped, 

Frost called the police. 

Officer Geoffrey Walter of the Cleveland Police Department 

responded at 3:58 a.m. to a report of shots fired into a home on Avon Avenue. He 

found 20 .233 round shell casings in the middle of the road in front of the home. 

Additionally, he found large holes in the walls of the house, indicating that a high-
powered weapon had been used, and bullet holes in the windows. Later the same 

morning, Officer Walter was dispatched to respond to a similar shooting at a home 

in Newburgh Heights. 

In 2017, De’Shawnta Boyland and his wife lived on East 52nd Street in 

Newburgh Heights. Immediately after the shooting at Avon Avenue, Boyland called 

his wife to see if she was at home. After learning that she was staying at her mother’s 

house that evening, Boyland drove to his home in Newburgh Heights and discovered 

that his house had also been “shot up.” 

 Narelle Stead, who lived on East 52nd Street only a few doors down 

from Boyland, testified that she woke up around 3:00 a.m. on September 23, 2017, 

to the sound of gunshots near her home. Stead looked out her front door and saw 

an older model “gray, silver, or white” Explorer-type SUV in the road and a Black 

male running toward it from a few houses down on the left. Stead heard someone 

in the SUV say “come on,” saw the male who was running jump into the SUV, and 

then saw the vehicle speed off. 

At 4:02 a.m., Newburgh Heights Police Officer Christopher Munk 

responded to a report of shots fired at a home on East 52nd Street. After speaking 

with Boyland, Officer Munk determined that Cottingham was the likely suspect. 

Boyland described Cottingham to Officer Munk as “a guy with tattoos on his face,” 

and showed him a picture of Cottingham from a social media site on his phone. 

Officer Munk also interviewed several neighbors that morning for information 

about the shooting. 
John Majoy, the chief of police for Newburgh Heights, obtained 

footage taken in the early morning hours of September 23, 2017, from several traffic 

cameras in the area of East 52nd Street. Footage taken at 3:15 a.m. from a camera 

located at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and East 42nd Street showed the 

suspected shooter’s vehicle driving eastbound on Harvard Avenue toward East 52nd 

Street. Other footage from a traffic camera at East 52nd Street showed the suspected 

shooter’s vehicle drive towards the camera, then turn westbound onto Harvard 

Avenue, and then northbound onto I-77. Chief Majoy described the vehicle on the 

footage as a “lighter-colored Ford Escape.” 

Special Agent Christopher Wilson, who worked for the Bureau of 

Criminal Investigations at the time of the incident, responded to the house on East 

52nd Street on September 23, 2017, for evidence collection. Special Agent Wilson 

collected 20 .223 casings and four .40 round casings from the scene. 

Kristin Koeth, a firearm and tool examiner for the Cuyahoga County 

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, testified that she reviewed 40 .223 casings 

related to the shootings: 20 from the Newburgh Heights incident and 20 from the 

Avon Avenue incident. Koeth compared the rounds from the two incidents and 

concluded that all 40 .223 rounds were fired from the same weapon. 

 On September 27, 2017, Cleveland Police Detective Elliot Landrau 

responded to MetroHealth Medical Center regarding three gunshot victims seeking 

medical treatment. When he arrived at MetroHealth, Det. Landrau observed a gray 

Ford Escape riddled with bullet holes parked in the emergency drop-off area. Det. 
Landrau spoke with the three shooting victims: Tanysia Hamilton, Temarcus 

Church, and a male who identified himself as Jashon Randall. Church and Randall 

refused to give Det. Landrau any information about where the shooting occurred 

and what happened. 

Det. Landrau then reviewed MetroHealth surveillance video of the 

emergency drop-off area. The video showed that when the gray Ford Escape arrived 

at the hospital, the male driver exited the SUV, walked over to nearby bushes, and 

then walked into the Emergency Room. The footage showed the female move from 

the passenger seat to the driver’s seat and then drive the SUV to the drop-off area, 

where the second male was helped out by medical staff. The next day, Det. Landrau 

learned that the driver, who identified himself to the detective and medical 

personnel as Jashon Randall, was actually Cottingham, who was using Randall’s 

name to obtain medical treatment at MetroHealth. 

After looking at the surveillance video, Det. Landrau and other onscene officers searched the bushes, where Det. Landrau found two handguns. One 

was a semiautomatic Ruger .45, and the other was a black Smith and Wesson. Det. 

Landrau later learned that one of the guns had been reported stolen by the Eastlake 

Police Department. At trial, Cottingham admitted that he had placed the guns in 

the bushes. Det. Landrau also recovered a black G-Zone phone from Cottingham. 

Det. Landrau testified that the Cleveland police recovered the gray 

Ford Escape, which had a 30-day tag, for processing. In the SUV, he found multiple 

rifle magazines that would hold .223 round ammunition, as well as an empty box of 
Remington .223 rounds. Officer Munk photographed the SUV while it was 

impounded in the Cleveland Police Department lot and confirmed at trial that it was 

the same vehicle seen on traffic camera video leaving the scene of the shooting in 

Newburgh Heights. During a jailhouse call made by Cottingham on October 20, 

2017, to the real Jashon Randall, Cottingham told Randall his car was impounded 

in the Cleveland impound lot and instructed Randall to retrieve it. 

Christopher Mealy, a detective at MetroHealth, testified that he 

reviewed surveillance video that showed Cottingham entering MetroHealth’s 

emergency room at 2:54 p.m. on September 27, 2017. He also spoke with 

Cottingham, who was representing himself to be Jashon Randall. Later, after 

learning that Randall was actually Cottingham, Det. Mealy obtained a search 

warrant for Randall’s MetroHealth medical records and learned that a Jashon 

Randall had also been treated at MetroHealth on September 23, 2017. Upon direct 

examination at trial, Cottingham admitted that he used Randall’s name to obtain 

medical treatment at MetroHealth for a broken jaw on September 23, 2017. 

CMHA Detective Ashley Jaycox testified that upon investigating the 

cellphone recovered from Cottingham on September 27, 2017, she found a text 

message received by the phone on September 27, 2017, at the same time Cottingham 

was receiving medical treatment at MetroHealth, that contained Randall’s social 

security number and instructions that “when you done make [sic] you delete this.” 

Another incoming text asked “who tf is this,” and an outgoing text in response stated 
“Rambo.” Cottingham confirmed during his testimony that his street name is 

Rambo. 

 After a warrant was issued for Cottingham’s arrest, Det. Jaycox and 

other police officers executed the warrant at an apartment on Crestline Avenue 

where Cottingham’s girlfriend lived. Cottingham opened the door in response to the 

officers’ knock, but then unsuccessfully tried to immediately close the door. The 

officers chased and then tackled Cottingham as he ran toward the back bedrooms of 

the apartment. After apprehending him, the police obtained a search warrant for 

the apartment and upon executing the warrant, discovered two firearms under a 

pillow in one of the back bedrooms. One was a model Thunder 9; the other was a 

Springfield model XD-40. 

Jeffrey Oblock, a DNA analyst for the Cuyahoga County Regional 

Forensics Laboratory, analyzed both firearms and found Cottingham’s DNA on the 

surface and magazines of both weapons. Kristin Koeth also analyzed the weapons 

and determined that the four .40 caliber shell casings recovered from outside 

Boyland’s home in Newburgh Heights were all fired by the Springfield model XD40 gun recovered from the Crestline Avenue apartment where Cottingham was 

apprehended. 

III. Law and Analysis 

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

Cottingham moved for Crim.R. 29 dismissal of the charges after the 

state’s presentation of the evidence, and he renewed his motion after the defense 
rested. In his first assignment of error, Cottingham contends that the trial court 

erred in denying his Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal because there was 

insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Specifically, he contends “there is 

no evidence he committed any of these crimes.” 

A Crim.R. 29 motion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The 

test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the prosecution mets its 

burden of production at trial. State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98366, 2013-

Ohio-578, ¶ 13. An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at 

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average 

mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is 

whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 

N.E.2d 541 (1997). We find that the evidence produced by the state was sufficient to 

support all of Cottingham’s convictions. 

B. The August 16, 2017 Incident on Bundy Drive 

1. Counts 1 through 4, Aggravated Burglary 

Counts 1 through 4 charged aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 

2911.11(A)(1) and (2), which provides that: 

No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an occupied 

structure or in a separately secured or separately occupied portion of 

an occupied structure, when another person other than an accomplice 

of the offender is present, with purpose to commit in the structure or 
in the separately secured or separately occupied portion of the 

structure any criminal offense, if any of the following apply: (1) the 

offender inflicts, or attempts or threatens to inflict physical harm on 

another; (2) the offender has a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance 

on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control. 

Both Perry and McCall testified that while they were having sex in her 

bedroom, Cottingham kicked in the bedroom door while carrying a gun in his hand. 

Perry also testified that she and Cottingham were no longer dating and that on 

August 16, 2017, he did not have permission to be in her house, and that his entrance 

was completely unexpected. Accordingly, the state presented sufficient evidence 

that Cottingham trespassed in Perry’s residence by means of force or deception in 

order to commit a criminal offense therein, the first element of aggravated burglary. 

The state also presented sufficient evidence that Cottingham inflicted 

and threatened physical harm by means of a deadly weapon while he was trespassing 

in Perry’s home. Both Perry and McCall testified that after he kicked in the bedroom 

door, Cottingham assaulted Perry by hitting her in the head with his gun and kicking 

her in the stomach. McCall also testified that Cottingham held a gun to him while 

demanding money and told him that he would shoot him if he ran. This evidence, if 

believed, was sufficient to support Cottingham’s convictions for aggravated burglary 

in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and (2). 

2. Count 9, Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) 

R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) provides that “[n]o person, with purpose to 

deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control 
over either property or services without the consent of the owner or person 

authorized to give consent.” 

Both Perry and McCall testified that Cottingham held McCall at 

gunpoint and demanded money from him. They both testified that McCall gave 

Cottingham his credit card in an effort to comply with Cottingham’s demand, but 

that Cottingham told McCall they were going to the ATM together. McCall testified 

that Cottingham held a gun to him as they left the house and walked to the ATM, 

and that Cottingham told him that he would shoot him if he ran. This is sufficient 

evidence to support all the elements of Cottingham’s conviction for theft. 

3. Counts 5 and 6, Aggravated Robbery in violation of R.C. 

2911.01(A)(1) 

Under R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), “[n]o person, in attempting or committing 

a theft offense * * * or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall have 

a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control 

and either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate that the offender possesses it, or 

use it.” 

The state presented sufficient evidence to support Cottingham’s 

conviction for aggravated robbery. Both Perry and McCall testified that after he 

kicked in the bedroom door and assaulted Perry, Cottingham demanded money 

from McCall at gunpoint. This evidence is sufficient to establish that Cottingham 

possessed, displayed, and brandished a deadly weapon while committing a theft 

offense, thereby establishing the elements of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). 
4. Count 7 and 8, Kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) 

Under R.C. 2905.01(A)(2), “[n]o person, by force, threat, or deception 

* * * shall remove another from the place where the other person is found or restrain 

the liberty of the other person * * * to facilitate the commission of any felony or flight 

thereafter.” Count 7 related to Perry; Count 8 related to McCall. 

The state presented sufficient evidence that Cottingham used force 

and threat of force to restrain both Perry and McCall’s liberty. Perry testified that 

Cottingham broke into her bedroom while carrying a gun and then assaulted her by 

hitting her in the face with his gun. She was not free to end this encounter because 

of the gun; accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Cottingham 

restrained Perry’s liberty by force in order to assault her. Likewise, Perry and McCall 

testified that Cottingham held McCall at gunpoint and demanded money from him. 

McCall testified further that Cottingham, while holding a gun to his head, moved 

him from the bedroom, down the stairs, outside the house, and into the alleyway. 

McCall also testified that Cottingham told him that he would shoot him if he tried to 

run away. This testimony is obviously sufficient to establish that Cottingham, by 

force and threat, restrained McCall’s liberty and removed him from the place he was 

found in order to commit a theft offense. 
C. The September 23, 2017 Incidents on Avon Avenue in Cleveland 

and East 52nd Street in Newburgh Heights 

1. Counts 10 and 16, Improperly Discharging Into Habitation in 

violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1) 

Under R.C. 2923.161(A)(1), “[n]o person, without privilege to do so, 

shall knowingly * * * discharge a firearm at or into an occupied structure that is a 

permanent or temporary habitation of any individual.” 

2. Counts 11 through 15, Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(2) 

R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly * * * 

cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn by means 

of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.” 

It was undisputed at trial that someone knowingly fired a high-caliber 

weapon into homes on Avon Avenue in Cleveland and East 52nd Street in Newburgh 

Heights on the morning of September 23, 2017, and attempted to cause physical 

harm to the people in the homes. Perry testified that she and her family were on the 

porch of her mother’s house on Avon Avenue when her uncle told the group to 

quickly go inside after they observed two vehicles drive slowly by the house. Perry 

said that shortly after they went inside, multiple shots were fired into the house, and 

everyone fell to the floor or hid. Michelle Frost testified that she observed someone 

wearing a gray hoodie fire a long-clipped weapon into the home. Boyland was at the 

home on Avon Avenue when the shooting occurred; he immediately went home and 

discovered that his home in Newburgh Heights had also been “shot up.” 
Cottingham’s assertion that the state presented insufficient evidence 

linking him to these crimes is without merit. First, the state presented evidence of 

the fight between Cottingham and Boyland that occurred prior to the shootings. 

Boyland testified that several hours before the shootings, he and Cottingham were 

involved in a fight at a bar. Boyland testified that Cottingham swung at him and 

missed, and then Boyland “got the upper hand.” Cottingham then angrily told 

Boyland that “he wasn’t taking no losses,” and that he would “shoot this bitch up.” 

Boyland testified that after this threat, he was so worried that Cottingham would 

retaliate that he left the bar, picked up Perry from her home, and took her to her 

mother’s house on Avon Avenue. Perry testified that Boyland picked her up because, 

knowing Cottingham’s propensity to anger, he thought that Cottingham would 

retaliate by targeting her house. 

After the shooting at Perry’s mother’s house, Boyland immediately 

called his wife to see if she was home, and then went to his own house, where he 

discovered it too had been “shot up.” When the police arrived, Boyland showed 

Officer Munk a photograph of Cottingham as the likely suspect. 

Boyland and Perry’s testimony clearly links Cottingham to the 

shootings. Boyland’s sense of urgency in getting Perry out of her house indicates 

that he knew Cottingham would be seeking revenge. Perry’s testimony that she 

“know[s Cottingham] and how his anger is” indicates that Boyland’s concern about 

Cottingham’s likely retaliation was not unfounded. It is no mere coincidence that 

that the homes of Perry’s mother and Boyland were subject to multiple gunshots 
only a few hours after Cottingham told Boyland that “he wasn’t taking no losses” and 

would “shoot this bitch up.” 

The evidence presented by the state regarding Cottingham’s gray SUV 

also linked him to the shootings. Perry identified Cottingham’s gray Ford Escape in 

a photograph labeled as state’s exhibit No. 186. Frost testified that she knew 

Cottingham drove a gray Ford Escape with a 30-day tag, and more specifically, that 

she knew he had been driving that vehicle around the time of the shootings. Frost 

identified Cottingham’s SUV in state’s exhibit No. 186, and importantly, testified 

that she saw Cottingham’s gray SUV pull up in front of the house immediately before 

the shooting. She watched someone wearing a gray hoodie exit the SUV and begin 

firing at the house. 

Similarly, Stead testified that when she went to the window after 

waking to the sound of gunshots near her home on East 52nd Street, she noticed a 

“gray, silver, or white” Explorer-type SUV in the road and a male running toward 

the SUV from a few houses down from her. Stead saw the male jump into the SUV 

and heard someone say “come on” as the SUV sped off towards Harvard Avenue. 

Chief Majoy testified about traffic camera footage from the morning and time of the 

shooting in Newburgh Heights that showed a “lighter-colored Ford Escape” driving 

on East 52nd Street, the street on which the shooting occurred. 

The evidence presented by the state relating to Cottingham’s medical 

treatment at MetroHealth on September 27, 2017, also linked Cottingham’s SUV to 

the shootings. Specifically, Cottingham was observed on video footage arriving at 
MetroHealth in a gray Ford Escape. Cleveland police impounded the vehicle, which 

had a 30-day tag, and while he was in jail, Cottingham made a jailhouse call to his 

friend Randall in which he admitted that his car was in the impound lot and gave 

him instructions as to how to retrieve it. Officer Munk confirmed that this SUV was 

the same vehicle observed on traffic camera footage leaving the scene of the shooting 

at Boyland’s home on East 52nd Street. 

Evidence presented by the state regarding the ammunition recovered 

from the scenes of the home shootings also linked Cottingham to the shootings. 

Officer Walter testified that he recovered 20 .223 round shell casings from the 

middle of the road at the Avon Avenue house. Special Agent Christopher Wilson 

testified that he recovered 20 .223 shell casings and four .40 round casings near 

Boyland’s house on East 52nd Street. Kristin Keoth analyzed the 40 .223 casings 

recovered from the scenes and determined that all 40 .223 rounds were fired from 

the same weapon. During the search of Cottingham’s vehicle at the impound lot, 

Det. Landrau found multiple rifle magazines that held .223 round ammunition, and 

an empty box of .223 rounds. 

Further, upon executing the search warrant at the house on Crestline 

Avenue where Cottingham was apprehended, police recovered two firearms — a 

Thunder 9 and a Springfield model XD-40. Jeffrey Oblock testified that 

Cottingham’s DNA was found on both weapons, and Koeth determined that the four 

.40 cartridge casings recovered from the scene at East 52nd Street were all fired by 

the Springfield model XD-40 weapon recovered at the Crestline apartment. 
Finally, the state presented evidence of Cottingham’s consciousness of 

guilt. The evidence demonstrated that Cottingham used Randall’s identification 

information at MetroHealth on September 23 and September 27, 2017, to hide his 

identity because he knew the police were looking for him after the August 16, 2017, 

incident involving Perry and McCall. Then, while he was in jail awaiting trial, 

Cottingham made numerous jailhouse phone calls in an attempt to silence potential 

witnesses. These calls were played for the jury. On October 25, 2017, Cottingham 

called Jashon Randall to confirm that Randall had reached out to Perry to obtain an 

affidavit from her that she had lied about the August 16, 2017, incident. On May 28, 

2018, Cottingham called his friend Julius, who is also friends with Boyland, to 

discuss reaching out to Boyland about his testimony. Another jailhouse call from 

Cottingham corroborated McCall’s testimony that someone offered him money not 

to testify. Upon cross-examination, Cottingham admitted that he used other 

inmates’ personal identification numbers to make the jailhouse calls to hide his 

actions from the prosecution. 

This evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, all 

points unequivocally to Cottingham as the perpetrator of the shooting incidents on 

September 23, 2017, and is sufficient to support Cottingham’s convictions for 

improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation and felonious assault. 

The first assignment of error is therefore overruled. 
D. Manifest Weight of the Evidence 

In his second assignment of error, Cottingham contends that his 

convictions were against the weight of the evidence. 

 In reviewing a claim challenging the manifest weight of the evidence, 

the appellate court must determine whether “there is substantial evidence upon 

which a jury could reasonably conclude that all the elements have been proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 

818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 81. This court examines the entire record in order to determine 

whether the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of 

justice that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Id. A 

conviction should be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in 

the most “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the 

conviction.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 388, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 

This is not that exceptional case. After a careful review of the entire 

record and for the reasons discussed above, we cannot say that the jury lost its way 

in convicting Cottingham of all offenses as charged. The second assignment of error 

is overruled. 

E. Joinder 

In his third assignment of error, Cottingham contends that the trial 

court erred in denying his Crim.R. 14 motion for separate trials on Counts 1 through 

9, involving the August 16, 2017 incident at Perry’s home, and Counts 10 through 16, 
involving the two shooting incidents on September 23, 2017, because the incidents 

were unrelated to each other and occurred more than a month apart. 

This court reviews a trial court’s decision on joinder for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102921, 2016-Ohio-2718, ¶ 21. 

Under Crim.R. 8(A), two or more offenses may be charged together if 

the offenses “are of the same or similar character, * * * or are based on two or more 

acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme 

or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” In fact, “[t]he law favors joining 

multiple offenses in a single trial under Crim.R. 8(A) if the offenses charged ‘are of 

the same or similar character.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 

293 (1990), quoting State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 343, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). 

“Joinder is liberally permitted to conserve judicial resources, reduce the chance of 

incongruous results in successive trials, and diminish inconvenience to the 

witnesses.” State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 58, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992). 

Cottingham argues that the August 16, 2017 incident was unrelated to 

the September 23, 2017 shootings because “one [incident] deals with going into a 

residence and the other has to do with a drive-by shooting.” He contends that the 

incidents did not involve the same acts or the same course of criminal conduct and 

were separate incidents that should not have been joined for trial. 

Cottingham’s argument is without merit because it is apparent that 

the incidents were connected and involved a common scheme or plan. Cottingham 

was angry that his ex-girlfriend was with another man and that her uncle bested him 
in a fight. As a result, he “shot up” the homes of his ex-girlfriend’s mother and her 

uncle. In light of the connection between the incidents, joinder under Crim.R. 8(A) 

was appropriate. Nevertheless, Cottingham contends that he was prejudiced by 

their joinder because “the two incidents spilled over into each other in the minds of 

the jurors.” 

A defendant may move to sever charges under Crim.R. 14 if it appears 

that the defendant may be prejudiced by joinder of the offenses. Wilson, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 102921, 2016-Ohio-4158 at ¶ 31. The defendant bears the burden of 

proving prejudice. State v. Payne, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107825, 2019-Ohio-4158, 

¶ 31. The state can rebut the defendant’s claim of prejudicial joinder by showing that 

(1) the evidence from the other case could have been introduced pursuant to the 

“other acts” test of Evid.R. 404(B); or (2) the evidence of each crime joined at trial 

is “simple and direct.” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 

N.E.2d 565, ¶ 96. 

The “simple and direct” evidence is satisfied when evidence is simple 

and direct enough that the jury can easily segregate the evidence. State v. Johnson, 

88 Ohio St.3d 95, 110, 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000). “A trier of fact is believed capable 

of segregating the proof on multiple charges when the evidence as to each of the 

charges is uncomplicated.” State v. Lander, 8th Dist Cuyahoga No. 101223, 2014-

Ohio-5341, ¶ 33, citing Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d at 343-344, 421 N.E.2d 1288. 

At trial, Perry and McCall testified regarding the incident that 

occurred on August 16, 2017. Boyland testified about his fight with Cottingham that 
led to the subsequent shoot-ups of his house and Perry’s mother’s house on 

September 23, 2017. Frost and Stead testified about their observations of 

Cottingham’s car at the scene of each shooting, and Det. Landrau testified about how 

Cottingham’s car was recovered by the police from the MetroHealth emergency 

drop-off area. Various other witnesses testified about the shell casings recovered at 

the scene of each shooting, the recovery of firearms from the apartment where 

Cottingham was arrested, and the DNA results showing Cottingham’s DNA on one 

of those weapons. Det. Jaycox testified about Cottingham’s jailhouse calls, in which 

he tried to get his friends to manipulate Perry, McCall, and Boyland to not testify 

against him. 

The evidence for the separate incidents that occurred on August 16, 

2017, and September 23, 2017, was separate and uncomplicated, and a reasonable 

juror could easily segregate the evidence because there was no overlap of proof. The 

“simple and direct” test was met in this case and, accordingly, Cottingham was not 

prejudiced by the joinder of the offenses. 

If the state satisfies the “simple and direct” test, an accused is not 

prejudiced by joinder regardless of the nonadmissibility of the evidence under 

Evid.R. 404(B). Payne, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107825, 2019-Ohio-4158 at ¶ 37, 

citing Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293. Accordingly, we need not consider 

whether the state met the “other acts” test for joinder. The joint trial in this case was 

not improper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion 

to sever. The third assignment of error is therefore overruled. 
F. Other Acts Evidence 

In his fourth assignment of error, Cottingham contends that the trial 

court erred in allowing improper “other acts” evidence to be admitted at trial. 

Evid.R. 404(B), governing other crimes, wrongs, or acts, provides, in 

relevant part: 

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the 

character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. 

It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of 

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or 

absence of mistake or accident. 

Evid.R. 404(B) does not apply to this case, however. Despite 

Cottingham’s argument, the state’s evidence of the separate criminal acts was not 

“other acts” evidence; it was evidence regarding the very crimes Cottingham was 

charged with committing. Furthermore, although Cottingham contends that 

improper “other acts” evidence was admitted at trial, he does not identify any 

evidence that was allegedly improperly admitted, but only generally asserts that “the 

testimony of each incident spill[ed] over onto the other,” “the state relied on 

inferences to implicate the defendant as being a gun-toting criminal,” and “the sole 

purpose of the testimony elicited by the state was to show that he acted in conformity 

with the crimes of which he was charged.” (Appellant’s brief, p. 26.) If evidence 

exists that can support an assignment of error, it is not the duty of the appellate court 

to root it out. State v. Gulley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109045, 2020-Ohio-3597, 

¶ 32. “We are not obliged to scour the record in search of evidence to support an 
appellant’s assignment of error.” State v. Patterson, 2017-Ohio-8318, 99 N.E.3d 

970, ¶ 37 (8th Dist.). 

Because Cottingham provides no factual basis from the record to 

support his blanket assertions that improper “other acts” evidence was improperly 

admitted, we need not consider this assignment of error further. The fourth 

assignment of error is overruled. 

G. Cottingham’s Juvenile Record 

In his fifth assignment of error, Cottingham asserts that the trial court 

erred in permitting the state to question him about his juvenile record. 

Generally, pursuant to Evid.R. 609(D) and R.C. 2151.358(H), the state 

is barred from introducing evidence of a defendant’s juvenile adjudications at trial. 

However, ‘“when a defendant in a criminal case is permitted to introduce evidence 

of his life history, he waives the protection of [the prior version of R.C. 2151.358] and 

may be cross-examined with reference to the disposition of any charge preferred 

against him as a juvenile.’” State v. Phillips, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96329, 2012-

Ohio-473, ¶ 59, quoting State v. Marinski, 139 Ohio St. 559, 41 N.E.2d 387 (1942). 

During direct examination, Cottingham testified that he was a hardworking individual who took care of Perry’s children and paid her household bills. 

(Tr. 1375, 1381, 1419, and 1422.) He also untruthfully testified that “I’ve been 

convicted of drugs and guns. Nothing in the nature of burglary, robbery, nothing in 

that state, just guns and drugs.” (Tr. 1376.) 
The state questioned Cottingham about his juvenile adjudications for 

robbery with a gun specification, burglary, and attempted burglary only after 

Cottingham testified about his life history, including that he had never been 

convicted of burglary or robbery. This testimony allowed the state to use the 

Marinski exception to ask about Cottingham’s juvenile adjudications. The fifth 

assignment is overruled. 

H. Consecutive Sentences 

Cottingham’s sixth assignment of error asserts that the trial court did 

not make the requisite statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences. 

Consecutive sentences may be imposed only if the trial court makes 

the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio 

St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 20-22. The court must both make the 

statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and 

incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry. Id. at the syllabus. 

Despite raising the trial court’s failure to make the requisite statutory 

findings as an assignment of error, Cottingham concedes in his appellate brief that 

the trial court both made the required findings for the imposition of consecutive 

sentences at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into its journal 

entry of sentencing. Our review of the record demonstrates likewise. Accordingly, 

the sixth assignment of error is overruled. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 

convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded 

to the trial court for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR